- The US Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Trump’s request to block his NY fine.
- The ruling means Trump must attend Friday morning’s sentencing, although he can do so by video.
- Prosecutors said Thursday they will not seek jail time, fines or probation at the sentencing.
The US Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s latest attempt to block his sentencing in New York, which now remains set for 9:30 a.m. Friday.
The high court’s ruling means Trump must attend or face a possible warrant for his arrest just 10 days before Inauguration Day.
Four conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh — had sided with Trump.
Two conservatives on the panel — Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett — broke ranks and supported the Manhattan prosecutors.
In their one-page order, the five-judge majority gave two reasons for rejecting Trump’s attempt to halt the sentence.
“First, the alleged evidentiary violations in President-elect Trump’s state trial can be addressed in the ordinary appellate course,” meaning after conviction, they wrote.
“Second, the burden that the conviction will place on the responsibilities of the President-elect is relatively insignificant,” they wrote, given that Trump faces a sentence without conviction and can attend the hearing virtually.
Trump’s lawyers last week asked that he be allowed to participate by video, a request granted by his trial judge, state Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg did not object to Trump’s virtual attendance and said Thursday that his office will not seek jail time, fines or probation in what is likely to be a very brief hearing.
Under New York’s sentencing guidelines, Trump had faced zero jail time and up to four years in prison for his May 30 conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records.
A Manhattan jury found that he altered Trump Organization invoices and other records during his first year in office to retroactively hide a $130,000 hush money payment that silenced porn actress Stormy Daniels eleven days before the election of 2016.
“Every legal scholar stated, unequivocally, that this is a case that should never have been brought,” Trump said in a Truth Social post Thursday night.
“There was no case against me,” he added. “This was nothing more than the weaponization of our justice system against a political adversary. It’s called Lawfare, and nothing like it has ever happened in the United States of America and should never be allowed to happen again.”
Speaking minutes after the SCOTUS order from Mar-a-Lago, Trump promised to appeal his conviction and reiterated that the prosecution is an “attack on a political opponent.”
“This is much more important than tomorrow,” he said of his planned appeal.
Trump had fought hard to avoid conviction, despite facing little concern or punishment beyond a few potential issues with his New Jersey liquor licenses.
Over the past week, his lawyers have argued in four courts – in Manhattan, Albany and Washington, DC – that any invocation of presidential immunity automatically entitles Trump to a stay pending appeal, even before he is sworn in.
In their opposition filings, Manhattan prosecutors scoffed at the idea that “president-elect immunity” exists. The landmark U.S. Supreme Court opinion on July 1 gave presidents broad immunity from prosecution, but did not mention the immunity before they were sworn in, Bragg’s lawyers said.
“The defendant’s new invocation of the President-elect’s immunity does not warrant his Court’s premature intervention” in an ongoing state criminal case, Bragg told the high court in documents filed Thursday morning.
Defense lawyers have promised to file an appeal after the sentencing, with SCOTUS if necessary, given what they say were violations of Trump’s constitutional rights before and during the trial.
In their primary example, they say grand jurors and trial jurors in the money case improperly heard evidence involving acts Trump took in his official role as president that prosecutors are now forbidden to use them.
This evidence of the official act, all from 2018, includes tweets sent by Trump, a federal form he signed and a conversation he had in the Oval Office with Hope Hicks, then his communications director.
Prosecutors and the trial judge, Merchan, have argued that even if this was evidence of the act, it was “harmless error” to share it with jurors, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
